Instead of judging people by drunken molestation complaints
during high school, I looked up the actual summary of Kavanaugh's
opinion on Constitutional issues and cases.
Here's the link I found:
Brett Kavanaugh on the Issues: Abortion, Guns, Climate and More
The cases and Constitutional rulings are Subheaded by topics of:
Abortion, Religion, Guns, Executive Agencies, Terrorist Detainees,
Voting laws, Climate/Business Regulations, Campaign Finance
so I listed these in a Poll.
I propose that anyone here who thinks they can make a better Judge
and stay more representative of the people with respect to the
integrity of Constitutional law, government, principle and process,
please review Judge Kavanaugh's opinions summarized in the link.
And state what you would agree with or what you would rule differently.
Especially object if you spot any bias from political belief or party
that unfairly excludes, penalizes or discriminates against people of other beliefs,
and/or establishes a faith based belief or bias to the point of being
“proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”
Ready?
If some good answers come out of this exercise, I will consider
inviting more of the public and more politicians to review our
Reviews, and take into consideration any shortfalls or conflicts
that should be looked at more in depth to resolve them.
=================================
Example:
Religion
Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues in a 2015 case about a part of the Affordable Care Act that required insurers to cover contraception. Under the law, employers must provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine. But employers who oppose contraception on religious grounds can bypass the requirement by submitting a form to their insurers, which then cover the workers’ contraception at no expense to the employers.
Some religious organizations challenged that arrangement, contending that even submitting the form made them complicit in providing contraception. An appeals court panel rejected their argument, and the full appeals court decided not to rehear it — over Judge Kavanaugh’s objections.
Forcing employers to submit the form violated their religious liberty, he wrote, though he acknowledged a Supreme Court precedent that strongly suggested that the government “has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations.” The same outcome could be achieved, he contended, if employers instead only had to notify the government of their objections and let the government deal with the insurers.
Separately, in a 2010 case, some atheists challenged the saying of a prayer at presidential inaugurations and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath of office. A three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit. But while the other two judges merely said the plaintiffs had no standing, Judge Kavanaugh weighed in on the merits.
He upheld the practice as constitutional, citing the principle that government-sponsored religious speech or prayer at public events where prayers were traditionally said do not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion, so long as the prayers are “not proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”
My opinions:
I believe this shows a slight bias TOWARD allowing prayers so long as they are not "proselytizing or exploitative" but AGAINST involvement in contraception because of belief-based objections.
The same standard of FREE CHOICE should be applied to both.
Not that prayers should be "removed altogether" but more strongly specify that
individuals and states have that right and responsibility to decide on whatever criteria
because it is faith based. Someone may object to any involvement for any reason,
whether it is imposing or not. As long as it is faith based, and conflicts with beliefs
of someone, they have a right to consent or dissent. I don't think Govt should be in the
business of REGULATION conditions on which that consent or dissent is "justified"
or it's a form of "government regulating faith based activities" by enforcing a condition on the choice.
Secondly, nobody addressed the fact that pushing health care regulations through govt
in itself was a faith based political belief established by legislation.
Had this been addressed in the first place, there wouldn't be this contradiction caused,
where religious minded people or groups with beliefs against certain types of contraception
found themselves forced into it. This could have been avoided at the start.
I'm not sure if Kavanaugh or others could have written this into their opinions,
if the argument was not brought up.
But if Justice Roberts can suddenly interpret a public health bill as a tax law,
why couldn't the ACA be addressed in terms of establishing a belief?
Was it "proselytizing or exploitative"
My answers and objections
1. mandates included tax penalties that PUNISHED citizens with an ADDITIONAL
cost or loss off their returns if they failed to comply. So for citizens with Constitutional beliefs
against this mandate as a violation, could not comply without violating our beliefs,
but if we didn't we faced a tax penalty. Thus, this law enacted a punishment on
citizens for not complying against our beliefs.
2. the regulations on exemptions included paid membership in religious membership
organizations as approved by govt. So this constituted govt regulation on the basis
of religion, and discrimination by creed as to which citizens were exempt from ACA mandates.
3. The required payment of taxes or fines went into govt run health insurance programs
and thus deprived citizens of equal liberty and choice to pay into other means of
paying and providing for health care. Citizens were not convicted first of violations,
such as proving first that they incurred health care costs to govt BEFORE depriving
them of liberty and compelling them to pay. So deprivation of liberty without due process
was also a violation of Constitutional beliefs or principles.
4. About half the members of Congress voted against the ACA mandates, and subsequent
shutdown of federal govt in objection to the unconstitutionality of its budget and funding provisions
cost taxpayers over $24 billion because of these conflicts not resolved in advance of passage.
This conflict and the costs related violate the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for
civil servants to seek to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks.
It can further be argued in general that the vote in Congress along party lines, showed
that passing and enforcing this bill put the beliefs and platform of one party over the
Constitutional equal inclusion and beliefs of the dissenting party, also in violation of the Code of Ethics
and public oath putting Constitutional duty of Govt above party.
5. Lastly, the ACA was not passed as the same law through both Congress (which voted and passed it as a public health bill) and through the Supreme Court (where it failed under general welfare or commerce clause, and only passed as Constitutional as a tax bill though it was not passed as one through Congress).
What should have occurred is an agreement or vote in Congress whether adding this
new form of federal functions required a Constitutional Amendment or not.
That would have been more in keeping with Constitutional process and principles,
or at least included Constitutional beliefs of citizens instead of excluding and discriminating
against half the nation and Congress, and would have prevented billions if not trillions in waste and cost
in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service due to failures to resolve conflicts in advance of passage.
- Emily Nghiem
www.ethics-commission.net
^ Please refer to link above that includes the Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment,
and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. If I open up this Q&A to the invite more
people, I recommend sticking to these principles so we argue on the same terms.
during high school, I looked up the actual summary of Kavanaugh's
opinion on Constitutional issues and cases.
Here's the link I found:
Brett Kavanaugh on the Issues: Abortion, Guns, Climate and More
The cases and Constitutional rulings are Subheaded by topics of:
Abortion, Religion, Guns, Executive Agencies, Terrorist Detainees,
Voting laws, Climate/Business Regulations, Campaign Finance
so I listed these in a Poll.
I propose that anyone here who thinks they can make a better Judge
and stay more representative of the people with respect to the
integrity of Constitutional law, government, principle and process,
please review Judge Kavanaugh's opinions summarized in the link.
And state what you would agree with or what you would rule differently.
Especially object if you spot any bias from political belief or party
that unfairly excludes, penalizes or discriminates against people of other beliefs,
and/or establishes a faith based belief or bias to the point of being
“proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”
Ready?
If some good answers come out of this exercise, I will consider
inviting more of the public and more politicians to review our
Reviews, and take into consideration any shortfalls or conflicts
that should be looked at more in depth to resolve them.
=================================
Example:
Religion
Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues in a 2015 case about a part of the Affordable Care Act that required insurers to cover contraception. Under the law, employers must provide insurance to their workers or pay a fine. But employers who oppose contraception on religious grounds can bypass the requirement by submitting a form to their insurers, which then cover the workers’ contraception at no expense to the employers.
Some religious organizations challenged that arrangement, contending that even submitting the form made them complicit in providing contraception. An appeals court panel rejected their argument, and the full appeals court decided not to rehear it — over Judge Kavanaugh’s objections.
Forcing employers to submit the form violated their religious liberty, he wrote, though he acknowledged a Supreme Court precedent that strongly suggested that the government “has a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception for the employees of these religious organizations.” The same outcome could be achieved, he contended, if employers instead only had to notify the government of their objections and let the government deal with the insurers.
Separately, in a 2010 case, some atheists challenged the saying of a prayer at presidential inaugurations and the phrase “so help me God” in the presidential oath of office. A three-judge panel dismissed the lawsuit. But while the other two judges merely said the plaintiffs had no standing, Judge Kavanaugh weighed in on the merits.
He upheld the practice as constitutional, citing the principle that government-sponsored religious speech or prayer at public events where prayers were traditionally said do not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishment of religion, so long as the prayers are “not proselytizing (seeking to convert) or otherwise exploitative.”
My opinions:
I believe this shows a slight bias TOWARD allowing prayers so long as they are not "proselytizing or exploitative" but AGAINST involvement in contraception because of belief-based objections.
The same standard of FREE CHOICE should be applied to both.
Not that prayers should be "removed altogether" but more strongly specify that
individuals and states have that right and responsibility to decide on whatever criteria
because it is faith based. Someone may object to any involvement for any reason,
whether it is imposing or not. As long as it is faith based, and conflicts with beliefs
of someone, they have a right to consent or dissent. I don't think Govt should be in the
business of REGULATION conditions on which that consent or dissent is "justified"
or it's a form of "government regulating faith based activities" by enforcing a condition on the choice.
Secondly, nobody addressed the fact that pushing health care regulations through govt
in itself was a faith based political belief established by legislation.
Had this been addressed in the first place, there wouldn't be this contradiction caused,
where religious minded people or groups with beliefs against certain types of contraception
found themselves forced into it. This could have been avoided at the start.
I'm not sure if Kavanaugh or others could have written this into their opinions,
if the argument was not brought up.
But if Justice Roberts can suddenly interpret a public health bill as a tax law,
why couldn't the ACA be addressed in terms of establishing a belief?
Was it "proselytizing or exploitative"
My answers and objections
1. mandates included tax penalties that PUNISHED citizens with an ADDITIONAL
cost or loss off their returns if they failed to comply. So for citizens with Constitutional beliefs
against this mandate as a violation, could not comply without violating our beliefs,
but if we didn't we faced a tax penalty. Thus, this law enacted a punishment on
citizens for not complying against our beliefs.
2. the regulations on exemptions included paid membership in religious membership
organizations as approved by govt. So this constituted govt regulation on the basis
of religion, and discrimination by creed as to which citizens were exempt from ACA mandates.
3. The required payment of taxes or fines went into govt run health insurance programs
and thus deprived citizens of equal liberty and choice to pay into other means of
paying and providing for health care. Citizens were not convicted first of violations,
such as proving first that they incurred health care costs to govt BEFORE depriving
them of liberty and compelling them to pay. So deprivation of liberty without due process
was also a violation of Constitutional beliefs or principles.
4. About half the members of Congress voted against the ACA mandates, and subsequent
shutdown of federal govt in objection to the unconstitutionality of its budget and funding provisions
cost taxpayers over $24 billion because of these conflicts not resolved in advance of passage.
This conflict and the costs related violate the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling for
civil servants to seek to employ the most economical means of accomplishing tasks.
It can further be argued in general that the vote in Congress along party lines, showed
that passing and enforcing this bill put the beliefs and platform of one party over the
Constitutional equal inclusion and beliefs of the dissenting party, also in violation of the Code of Ethics
and public oath putting Constitutional duty of Govt above party.
5. Lastly, the ACA was not passed as the same law through both Congress (which voted and passed it as a public health bill) and through the Supreme Court (where it failed under general welfare or commerce clause, and only passed as Constitutional as a tax bill though it was not passed as one through Congress).
What should have occurred is an agreement or vote in Congress whether adding this
new form of federal functions required a Constitutional Amendment or not.
That would have been more in keeping with Constitutional process and principles,
or at least included Constitutional beliefs of citizens instead of excluding and discriminating
against half the nation and Congress, and would have prevented billions if not trillions in waste and cost
in keeping with the Code of Ethics for Govt Service due to failures to resolve conflicts in advance of passage.
- Emily Nghiem
www.ethics-commission.net
^ Please refer to link above that includes the Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment,
and Code of Ethics for Govt Service. If I open up this Q&A to the invite more
people, I recommend sticking to these principles so we argue on the same terms.
